G'day George,
Even discounting a lot of the pile-on me-too complaints against Tony from problem editors, there remain significant numbers of people who aren't and object to some of the stuff he's done.
"Significant" is a bit strong. I'd go with "not insignificant". (Hey, it's a fine line ...)
My objection in short: "Fuck process" is, here and now, more of a problem for Wikipedia than any of the individual wrongs Tony has righted using that justification, of late. Playing well with others is more important now.
"Fuck process" is an entirely appropriate attitude for any experienced Wikipedian to take. If you're doing the Right Thing, it doesn't matter if process backs you up or not --- if it does, well, whoopee, and if it doesn't, well we don't follow process when it leads to obvious absurdities (like not doing the Right Thing).
The thing is, you've got to be prepared to accept that what you're doing may not be the Right Thing and, if so, be willing to apologise. And Right/Wrong isn't binary: it's a spectrum from Wrong Thing to Right Thing and you can be 90% Right and still be causing legitimate editors to complain because you didn't get spot on. That's where "my ideals were right, but it lacked something in the execution" comes in.
And to make things more complicated, sometimes (but not as often as we're led to believe) the Right Thing can only be achieved by following process, lest we get 10% Wrong by pissing a legit editor off ...